Skip to Content
 

Helping in making a video game

196 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Stil some tests, with 3d graphs

Are required.

My last test was...
Linear to Factored/Linear

1.
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.
Linear to rooted.

2.
The alternate calculation should also be tested.
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.

3.Other alternatives.

***

I should make a little print of the 3d graphs and see the practical choices. This because so far, glass cannons are surely a stupid choice without proper defences.

Maybe I should also make a 2v2 test where the meat is targetted first. Just to see how severe the effect of this can be.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Stil some tests, with 3d graphs

Are required.

My last test was...
Linear to Factored/Linear

1.
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.
Linear to rooted.

2.
The alternate calculation should also be tested.
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.

3.Other alternatives.

***

I should make a little print of the 3d graphs and see the practical choices. This because so far, glass cannons are surely a stupid choice without proper defences.

Maybe I should also make a 2v2 test where the meat is targetted first. Just to see how severe the effect of this can be.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Stil some tests, with 3d graphs

Are required.

My last test was...
Linear to Factored/Linear

1.
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.
Linear to rooted.

2.
The alternate calculation should also be tested.
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.

3.Other alternatives.

***

I should make a little print of the 3d graphs and see the practical choices. This because so far, glass cannons are surely a stupid choice without proper defences.

Maybe I should also make a 2v2 test where the meat is targetted first. Just to see how severe the effect of this can be.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Stil some tests, with 3d graphs

Are required.

My last test was...
Linear to Factored/Linear

1.
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.
Linear to rooted.

2.
The alternate calculation should also be tested.
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.

3.Other alternatives.

***

I should make a little print of the 3d graphs and see the practical choices. This because so far, glass cannons are surely a stupid choice without proper defences.

Maybe I should also make a 2v2 test where the meat is targetted first. Just to see how severe the effect of this can be.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Stil some tests, with 3d graphs

Are required.

My last test was...
Linear to Factored/Linear

1.
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.
Linear to rooted.

2.
The alternate calculation should also be tested.
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.

3.Other alternatives.

***

I should make a little print of the 3d graphs and see the practical choices. This because so far, glass cannons are surely a stupid choice without proper defences.

Maybe I should also make a 2v2 test where the meat is targetted first. Just to see how severe the effect of this can be.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Stil some tests, with 3d graphs

Are required.

My last test was...
Linear to Factored/Linear

1.
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.
Linear to rooted.

2.
The alternate calculation should also be tested.
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.

3.Other alternatives.

***

I should make a little print of the 3d graphs and see the practical choices. This because so far, glass cannons are surely a stupid choice without proper defences.

Maybe I should also make a 2v2 test where the meat is targetted first. Just to see how severe the effect of this can be.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Quote:1.I need to make sure

Quote:
1.
I need to make sure my basic calculation shows something similar as the latest tests.
Linear to rooted.

Ok, my basic calculation shows that the normals win in any practical way possible. I need to change this for sure.
So, the original is very bad. Even if I take 25% of the linear portion and 75% of the alternative calculation.

I also took another look at the 3d grapsh of the linear to factored. And if I put this in 25% to 75%. I highlight the results. Then I add up the 2 3d graphs together. I get big area's of "yellow" despite highlighting results. This is a good sign.

Quote:
2.
The alternate calculation should also be tested.
Linear to rooted, but the result squared.

Still need to see if the balance improves with number 2. of the previous post.

I can simply copy/paste the 2 graphs. And then change the calculation of the body and weapon part.

So, what did I calculate? And what do I need to calculate?

X
is a portion, the total is always 100%. In my graphs, I can alted this and over 10k numbers change.

B
is the body value. In my graphs I go from 0% up to 100%. Through X and thus C, it is recalculated for the combat test.

W
is the weapon value. In my graphs I go from 100% down to 0%. Through X and thus C, it is recalculated for the combat test.

C
is the "balanced" value. It can vary between 0% to 100%. (1/C) is used to recalculate B and W for the combat tests.

Tested:
Linear to Rooted (partly board game friendly)
C = (1-X)*(B+W) + X*2*sqrt(B*W)
Linear to Factored
C = (1-X)*(B+W) + X*4*B*W

Yet to test:
Linear to Squared
C = ( (1-X)*(B+W) + X*2*sqrt(B*W) )^2
Alternative (also board game friendly)
If W>B;
C = (1+X)*B + (1-X)*W
Else;
C = (1-X)*B + (1+X)*W

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
X3M wrote: Tested: Linear to

X3M wrote:

Tested:
Linear to Factored
C = (1-X)*(B+W) + X*4*B*W

A reminder to myself.
This one shows in a 1 on 1 battle that normals are the underdog. So, in a sense, they are vital for multiple units. But in a one on one fight, you better pick a meat or support unit.

This is in contrary to the other test.

Perhaps I don't have to test the other systems. But I will still create them to make sure. Since I too make mistakes along the way like everyone else.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
To understand what I mean

An unit like the rocket soldier from C&C.

Let's give the body 50 points and the weapon 450 points.

500 Linear.
300 Rooted.
180 Factored.
100 Alternative.
400 Linear to Rooted on a 50%-50% basis.
350 Linear to Rooted on a 25%-75% basis.
320 Linear to Rooted on a 50%-50% basis and squared.
245 Linear to Rooted on a 25%-75% basis and squared.
340 Linear to Factored on a 50%-50% basis.
260 Linear to Factored on a 25%-75% basis.
300 Linear to Alternative on a 50%-50% basis.

Now, compared to a unit that has a body of 250 points and a weapon of 250 points. This design always costs 500.

Linear seems to always have the normals on its side.
Rooted seems to be on equal grounds in a 1 on 1 fight.
Factored seems to have the meat and support in an advantage, to a certain point. But the 2 on 2 matches still shift this back to the normals to a certain point.
The alternative is just plain weird.

I think I should have multiplications for sure. Since this would boost the glass cannons and paper poppers a bit more.
The alternative is now discarded again. It also had some wrong favoritism located between the normals and the 1 to 9 designs.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Squared might not be enough

I changed the alternative calculation a bit.
I compare the 2 values body and weapon. And subtract the lowest, twice from the highest.
Then the remaining value is multiplied by a factor, to make this value lower. And the lowest value is added to it twice again.

With a factor 0.5, you get the same calculation as above. But it is a bit more understandable.

I discovered that a 50-200 unit will cost less than the root calculation for 100%. This means that these units would be stronger than normal units.
67% in the alternative calculation for the factor gives the exact same root cost.

Suffice to say, I do favour designs to be more effective than normal designs.
And the 1:3 design is most optimal here for 1 on 1 battles.
While the 1:2 design is most optimal for 2 on 2 battles.

I seek a difference in effectiveness in various situations. Purely on health and damage value only.

***

I also checked what would happen if I square these calculations. And a factor of 0.7 here results in almost the same effectiveness graph as 0.5 on the alternative graph.

50-100 units would cost
125 or 121.5
50-150 units would cost
150 or 144.5

Hardly a difference. And thus, squared here is of no concern?

50-450 unit would cost
275 or 288.8
And here things go the other way around...

This made me think.
A first step calculation gives graphs that go from good to bad or the other way around.
A second step calculation (squared) gives graphs that go from good-bad-good, or, bad-good-bad. With exception of glass cannons and alike of course.

So, perhaps I should see if I can find a third step calculation???
But how would it look like?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
A plan?

Well, it is all math. But I am trying to put it in layman terms here.

To calculate the costs. I used several ways.
My boardgame uses a simple addition of the body and weapon.
And this works because I have a clear rule on how to take cover in a squad using allies.

In RTS, this is different.
Here I tried the following. While having the simple addition. It will be taken on average with another calculation.
Multiplying the body with the weapon, then taking the root out of it. Means we also can get zero's. This is why I also apply averaging with the additions.

Factoring, which means the same. But I don't apply the root.
Here I actually see that other designs than normals can be on top of a battle.

Less addition, which I call the alternate. But I should call it less addition instead. Is where the lowest value of the body or weapon. Is calculated normally. And the other value is cheaper. This too, allows for other designs to be more powerfull than the normals.

Then I figured, that there is always only 1 top design.
With the Factoring, there is are 2 top designs. This is depending on if it is a 1 on 1 battle or 2 on 2 battle.
This is a good thing.

So, if I want more. I thought of using any way to calculate so far. But squaring it. And with that, I mean, calculating the costs normally. Then compare to a normal design with the stats balanced out. And subtract the difference once more. This gave negative numbers too. We can't have that. Or we need to be mild with the originals.
And another was is to multiply with the new cost, then divide by the normals cost. Which never can reach 0.

The latter too, does give interesting results. But not 2 top designs. No, this time it goes back to one top design.

I also realized that having the squaring once more. Calling it cubic. Does not bring out multiple top designs. But instead, makes the difference in balance sharper. In other words, the game becomes very imbalanced that way.

***

The plan(s)
I have 2.

One
I still look for a 3 step calculation.
1. I calculate costs in a primairy way.
2. ?
3. I square or subtract from the costs.

Point 2 and 3 can switch places.

? can be something relating not only the cost value. But also one or both of the stats again. Because that way, I could make different calculations.

Two
I manually fill in the costs, starting from the normals. Then expand to the glass cannons and paper poppers.
And try to keep it as balanced as possible in the 2v2 battle's. The difference in stats are going to be recalculated. And should provide me with a nice calculation for how to calculate the costs.

Let's say, I am reverse enginering here.
But it will be very hard. And has a lot of work.

Then, the calculation will be a bit different in such a way. That I can created several hot spots. Such that a RPS is created in combining your forces. That is my goal.

***

I seriously am going for plan 2 right now. Because it would also show if plan 1 has any possible results.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
X3M wrote:Two I manually fill

X3M wrote:
Two
I manually fill in the costs, starting from the normals. Then expand to the glass cannons and paper poppers.
And try to keep it as balanced as possible in the 2v2 battle's. The difference in stats are going to be recalculated. And should provide me with a nice calculation for how to calculate the costs.

Let's say, I am reverse enginering here.
But it will be very hard. And has a lot of work.

Then, the calculation will be a bit different in such a way. That I can created several hot spots. Such that a RPS is created in combining your forces. That is my goal.


So.....
I got a list of numbers.
But am not sure what to do with it.
I got at least 9 numbers after the decimal. And the graph still shows some balance.
The walls and rogue projectiles are removed to make certain everything goes well.
As if I am observing the 1 on 1. Where the root is pervect balance... I am sure I can find a way to make 2 on 2 practically speaking, balanced.

It shows I need to have at least one division by 1 of the parameters. But that's it...

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
You've taken it to ANOTHER level...?

I guess someone shared with you some further information or was it just YOU that came up with all those "spreadsheets" with the Red/Yellow/Green analysis???

It's all beyond me... So I cannot help because it all seems so "technical"!

But feel free to use BGDF.com as a sounding board... Feel free to express your progress and your thoughts on the matter. Like I said, I honestly feel like you are well beyond the normal analysis and into some kind of deeper thought when it comes to the RTS Video Game.

If ever I understand something to comment on... I will... But for now just keep doing what you are doing because it seems to be helpful.

Cheers!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:I guess

questccg wrote:
I guess someone shared with you some further information or was it just YOU that came up with all those "spreadsheets" with the Red/Yellow/Green analysis???

All me. I just wanted it to be done.
I had the 1 on 1 battle's to toy with on how I wanted to analyse the more complex battle's.

Normally the really smart RTS designers use matrix calculations. Let's just say... I am to stupid for that.

questccg wrote:

It's all beyond me... So I cannot help because it all seems so "technical"!
It is beyond me as well. Altough, I got a list of numbers and I learned from the proces as well.

questccg wrote:

But feel free to use BGDF.com as a sounding board... Feel free to express your progress and your thoughts on the matter. Like I said, I honestly feel like you are well beyond the normal analysis and into some kind of deeper thought when it comes to the RTS Video Game.
It is kinda my own approach to the math. I could post the list of numbers here. We get this X and Y if you will...
Actually, we got body points, health points, for both meat and support. The story is that the support always dies first. But either way. To have a team tying with any other team is already like a dream come true to me.
The numbers for it show there is a system for sure.
It just.... goes beyond my comprehension atm.

questccg wrote:
If ever I understand something to comment on... I will... But for now just keep doing what you are doing because it seems to be helpful.

Cheers!

I could show you the 3d graphs from top. In discord. From start to end. What I came up with. How it is tested. Then what I had to do to get a list of numbers...."Manually!!" And now to seek out by engineering backwards.

Fun fact, asked some wizkids from a 4d gaming platform. So far...the problem is my explanation I guess.

Either way, once I find the formula. I can link it to my 1 on 1 formula. And probably to a linear system too.
My goal is to have RPS, through only body and weapon points.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I found it!!!

I have found a perfect formula to calculate the perfect balance for 2 on 2 battle's of the meat/support being an exact mirror. Versus any other meat/support mirror.

I already have a perfect balance of 1 on 1 battle's. They differ here and there.

Main knowledge will be that if I design them to be good for 2 on 2. Then the 1 on 1 will work in their favour. I could pick a cost for the units right in between the 2. In that regard. The support unit always needs to be protected. Or else the team looses. While in a 1 on 1 battle, the support unit simply wins from a normal as well.

Still, this would mean that they are much cheaper than the normal sum of the body and weapon.
And they don't differ much of each other. Just a small margin. This includes the glass cannons too.
I need to discuss the 1% and 2% health units.
In regards to the 1 on 1 and the 2 on 2.

Still a lot of work. And I got mixed feeling for the fact that it doesn't matter much. But I can continue to search.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The big 5

I have 5 formula's that give either a balance or boost certain designs that suffer the most after applying a mix of formula's.

1.
The sum of the body and weapon.
Is used to keep base destruction balanced.
The normals are the strongest here.

2.
Two times the root of the factor body times weapon.
Is used to have a perfect balance in 1 on 1 battles.
Once a 0 is introduced, this formula breaks.

3.
Is used to have a perfect balance in 2 on 2 battles.
Here the meat unit is targetted first.
Surprisingly, it is not a real opposite of the next one.
(And I now ponder if I shouldn't make another type of graph for these)

4.
Is again used to have a perfect balance in 2 on 2 battles.
This time the support unit is targetted first.

5.
Four times the body times Weapon.
Then divided by the sum of the body and weapon.
Is used to boost units like glass cannons to a consideradeble level.

***

The current system is an average of 1 and 2.
I consider having a new system that is an average of all 5.
The value of units decrease on the far edges by a small margin.
If we consider something to be more important in the game. Then we can increase its weight.

But ehm.... it all gets too complicated. And the graphs all kinda blend together into something that is close to one of them. Which makes me also ponder if I even should continue with this research. It is kinda wasting my time that I spend on helping with the game and doesn't give progress.

If the end result is that my original formula is balanced. It is up to the players to design with a little bit of intelligence.

This mean that if they make support units. The weaponry should have a bigger attack range then the so called meat units in that team. Etc.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut